Saturday, February 8, 2014

Evolutionist: “This Picture Has Creationists Terrified”

Chromosomal Comparisons and a Fusion Event

Popular evidences for evolution are the DNA comparisons between species and how they align with the expected common descent pattern. Species that are thought to be more closely related on the evolutionary tree have been found to have more similar DNA, and species that are thought to be more distant on the evolutionary tree have been found to have greater differences in their DNA. The DNA comparisons, evolutionists argue, confirm the expected pattern. Indeed, evolutionists often presented such evidence with great confidence. As Christian de Duve once triumphantly declared: “All [organisms] are descendants of a single ancestral form of life. This fact is now established thanks to the comparative sequencing of proteins and nucleic acids.” But while evolutionists were quick to celebrate these comparisons that confirmed their expectations, contradictory findings slowly but surely arose. Increasingly genome similarities in otherwise distant species, and genome differences in otherwise similar species were discovered. And while evolutionists sometimes tried to explain these uncooperative findings, the evolutionary histories they needed to construct became increasingly complex and circuitous. Today these uncooperative findings have become undeniable and in response evolutionists have all but dropped the common descent prediction, replacing it with a lineage-specific model where evolution is constantly creating new genome features, even between nearest neighbors on the evolutionary tree. What evolutionists have not reckoned with is the implications of this move. If evolution can produce a lineage-specific pattern as well as a common descent pattern, then the comparisons lose their confirmation power. If evolution explains either A or B, then the observation of A, or of B, cannot support evolution very well. Nonetheless evolutionists continue to proclaim those comparisons that align with common descent as powerful and compelling proof texts for evolution. One such comparison is between the chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Chimpanzees and gorillas have 24 pairs of chromosomes but humans have only 23 pairs. Did humans lose a set of chromosomes after splitting off from the human-chimp common ancestor? Perhaps, but when scientists looked more closely they found evidence for the fusion of two of the human chromosome pairs. In other words, after splitting off from the human-chimp common ancestor, the branch leading to humans initially had 24 chromosome pairs but at some point two of the pairs fused together to form a larger, single chromosome. Evolution dodged a potential problem.

Evolution also was able to make the argument that before that fusion event, the 24 chromosome pairs in the lineage leading to humans would have been all the more similar to the chimpanzee’s 24 chromosomes. In other words, with the hypothesized fusion event, the evidence fit the common descent pattern pretty well.

But as we have seen above, comparisons that fit the common descent pattern have lost their evidential status because there are so many contradictory findings. Furthermore, any evidence that confirms a prediction is, well, just that. An observed confirmation, of a prediction of a theory, has very limited power to prove anything in science. In fact, to think otherwise, as evolutionists such as de Duve have, is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. If P then Q does not imply that if Q the P.

So readers may have been flummoxed by Chris Mooney’s piece this week touting the human, chimp and gorilla chromosome comparisons as a “particularly stunning evidence of evolution,” and a “compelling piece of evidence” that serves “to clinch the argument for evolution.” Indeed, Mooney characterized these comparisons as “the most powerful evidence for evolution that you can imagine.”

Evolution dodged a problem and the result was a similarity between humans, chimps and gorillas. That’s hardly a clincher for evolution.

But evolutionists are not simply committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. And they are well aware that there are many other similarities between the primates. They are also quite knowledgeable of all those differences between the species that don’t fit the common descent pattern.

So why the high confidence? The answer, as usual, is religion. This chromosomal comparison does not prove evolution in any sort of direct sense. Rather, it disproves creationism. These data do not somehow demonstrate that humans, or any other species for that matter, must have arisen from chance mutations. Indeed, the evolutionary narrative that Mooney and the evolutionists set forth to explain the comparison is a chromosomal fusion event.

So what?

The chromosomal fusion event doesn’t even require any species to be created—it occurs in the human genome, period. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

But evolutionists triumphantly declare this evidence to prove evolution because it disproves creationism. Mooney’s headline says it all: “This Picture Has Creationists Terrified.” For evolutionists it’s all about their metaphysics.

An alternative explanation is that the designers fused the two chromosomes together when they created humans. ...

The difficulty with this idea is that there is no obvious advantage to having 46 chromosomes instead of 48. ...

And even if there were, a designer who can easily put in the 60 million or so differences between humans and chimpanzees should be able to accomplish whatever results a chromosome fusion gives more elegantly than sticking two ape chromosomes together.

The power of the argument is not that evolution is confirmed, but rather than design is falsified. As Denis Alexander elaborates in his book Creation or Evolution, the fused chromosome “reveals our shared ancestry with the apes.” [211] Of course the chromosome reveals no such thing. It provides no more evidence for evolution than any other similarity. Starr, Alexander and the evolutionists may as well be discussing similarities we share with the apes in our bones or our biochemistry. But the evolutionists focus on cases such as the fused chromosome because these cases provide far more powerful religious evidence. As Alexander explains:

The suggestion that God has planted misleading ‘molecular fossils’ in our bodies is parallel to the suggestion that God planted misleading physical fossils in the rocks to test the faith of the believer. The obvious and profound theological problem with such a suggestion, as we considered in Chapter Six, is that it makes God into a deceiver on a grand scale. It would mean believing in a God who deliberately confuses people, making it look certain that we had shared common ancestry with the apes, when really this was not the case. [213]

So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?

We do. It's human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.

Is there any way that intelligent design or special creation could explain why we have a chromosome like this? The only way that I can think of is if you're willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.

In his testimony, Miller told the Dover court that:

the closer that we can get to looking at the details of the human genome, the more powerful the evidence has become.

And when out of court, he makes the same statement:

The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.

The difference is he carefully omits the religion when in court. Nor did Miller reveal to the court that evolution is in no way required to explain the chromosome fusion evidence and that, beyond speculation, evolution has no explanation for how chromosomes evolved in the first place.

And so while creationists say evolution is atheism in disguise, and evolutionists say evolution is nothing more than just science, the fact is it is neither. Evolutionist’s conclusions that evolution must be true because a creator or designer would never have made this world can be true only if a creator or designer really would never have made this world. Evolutionists are convinced these premises of theirs are true, but those premises do not come from science.

Evolution is far more powerful than is often understood. For evolution is not atheism, it is theism.

253 comments:

Why are Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch so similar in their features? Even on the inside the hardware components must be quite the same. I'll bet if you could see the software that the magnetic bits in their storage components represents it too would be quite similar. But it would be the farthest thought in one's mind that this is proof that the iPhone evolved from the iPod Touch without a designer who specified that it should be so.

Can a evolution advocate explain to me: What makes applying the same line of thinking to cell biology so irrational? And even if you think it's irrational, why do you believe its discussion in public school biology classes be banned by law?

Can a evolution advocate explain to me: What makes applying the same line of thinking to cell biology so irrational? And even if you think it's irrational, why do you believe its discussion in public school biology classes be banned by law?

First and foremost, Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious doctrines. ID attempts to hide its own religious origins and affiliations but these have been well established in court. Consequently, it is not just a question of banning these subjects from being promoted in the science classes by local or state laws, it is unconstitutional to teach them on the authority of the state.

Second, the only things we know for a fact are designed are those we have designed ourselves, like the iPhone and iPod. As yet, we have absolutely no evidence of extraterrestrial designers. We're pretty sure we didn't design life on Earth so all we have is the fact that some phenomena or features in biology look similar to things we would design today, such as the human eye being similar to a digital camera.

This brings as back to the nature of the designer which ID proponents pretend is ireelevant but which would be fundamental to any proper scientific program of research into evidence for design. For example, the evidence you would expect to find for a Stone Age designer of flint arrowheads is going to be very different from the evidence you would expect to find for a designer of quad-core microprocessors in Silicon Valley in the twenty-first century. As for the designer of some as yet undiscovered technology a thousand years in the future, who knows? So why should we expect to see a designer of unknown powers, apparently working billions of years ago, using technology similar to what human beings used in their nineteenth and twentieth century artefacts?

Given this, as ID proponents are well aware, their only hope is to develop some tool, some metric, which can reliably distinguish that which was designed from that which wasn't. Thus far, in spite of some grandiose claims, they haven't been able to demonstrate anything remotely approaching what they need.

So what would you have them teach students of biology about ID while not promoting twentieth-century Protestant notions of creation as if they were well-founded scientifically? Bear in mind that it is your duty as a science teacher to present what is currently held to be best thinking and practice by the biological community, not only that which conforms to your personal religious beliefs. If you want to discuss these matters in a high-school science class you need to take all of this into account.

Ian: "So what would you have them teach students of biology about ID while not promoting twentieth-century Protestant notions of creation as if they were well-founded scientifically?"

The same thing I would have them teach students of biology about Evolution while not promoting atheism as if it were well-founded scientifically. i.e. "They are two different philosophies on how things got to be the way we now see them. Now students, continue on with your lab assignment and marvel at the exquisit design found in these cells!"

Meaning there is only one arrangement that fits for most taxa. With human artifacts, there are many ways to arrange them. For instance, books can be arranged in Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Classification, or a multitude of other arrangements.

Joe G: the observed nested hierarchy wrt biology is Linnean taxonomy which is based on a common design.

Zachriel: "Meaning there is only one arrangement that fits for most taxa. With human artifacts, there are many ways to arrange them. For instance, books can be arranged in Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Classification, or a multitude of other arrangements."

Ha! you must be a creationist, then! Do you mean a "singular nested hierarchy" such as:

only life begets life:

within life: only plants beget plants, only fish beget fish; only birds beget birds, only beast of the earth beget beasts of the earth, only humans beget humans.

And within each of these branches: only kinds of plants beget the same kind of plants, only kinds of fish beget the same kinds of fish; only kinds of birds beget the same kinds of birds, only the same kinds of beast of the earth beget beasts of the earth -- but there is only one kind of human, made in the image of its creator.

And from the seed of each kind of branch, such as humans for example: There is one body trunk, and the body trunk begets two legs (right and left), two arms (right and left), one head. The head begets one nose, one mouth, two ears (left and right) and one brain (left and right sides)

And with a seed, there is one cell (male and female) that begets all other cells, each in their proper order to build up the whole body in the DESIGN that it has been assigned.

How would you define "religious doctrine," in this context? IOW, what is it that makes a theory of origins a "religious doctrine"?

Philosophers and lawyers have been struggling to to come up with an adequate definition of what constitutes a religion for hundreds of years, apparently without success, so I am under no illusion that I can do any better.

A theory of origins need not be a religious doctrine but one that invokes an ultimate designer or Supreme Creator who demands absolute and unquestioning fealty from his creatures and prescribes how they should behave, that probably is.

We should note again, in passing, that the theory of evolution is not a theory of origins. It says nothing about who or what created the Universe. It doesn't command that some ultimate being or even an earthly originator be worshiped in any way, nor does it prescribe how its followers should behave towards one another or to non-believers. It is simply a description of some observed features of the natural world and a provisional account of how they came to be. Unlike religious dogma, it admits it could be wrong.

Creationism, on the other hand, is openly and honestly a school of belief within the well-established religion of Christianity. It is a religious doctrine if anything is. The Intelligent Design movement (IDM) has its origins in Christianity although it has tried to distance itself from those roots. This includes careful avoidance of identifying or specifying who the Designer is, probably for legal reasons. While it is certainly possible to conduct a scientific research program to find if there are common features in all design, regardless of the designer, which can be used to reliably distinguish design from not-design, leading figures in IDM have made clear in their writings that there is a religious purpose to the movement.

For example, William Dembski has said "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God." and written that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

Phillip Johnson has written "This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy." and "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." and "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools". Need I go on?

Where scientists are injudicious enough to comment on the religious implications of their research it is usually in response to the unrelenting attacks on that work from ID and creationist quarters. But commenting on someone's religious beliefs doesn't automatically make one a member of a different faith. As an agnostic or atheist, I can comment on aspects of Christian doctrine without being anything other than agnostic or atheist.

We should note again, in passing, that the theory of evolution is not a theory of origins.

Evolutionary thought is much broader than "we observed some changes in allele frequencies." As Neil Tyson said, Evolution is “not only an important concept in biology but an important concept in all of science.”

Of course evolution is a theory of origins. The fact that you believe otherwise suggests you are not seriously reckoning with the subject.

iPhones have genes in that there are linear sequences of code that are read, copied, translated, edited then used to synthesized two dimensional objects (buttons, fields, images, cursors, etc), where genes are used to synthesized three dimensional objects.

No they do not reproduce sexually, but only because they weren't designed to do so. They do reproduce themselves in some respects when they bootstrap themselves up from a kernel of code.

But that does point out the absurdity of evolution. If iPhones were designed to reproduce sexually, it would be equivalent to a xerox copier not only copying the original copy, but also synthesizing another xerox copier that can then copy that copy. Do that 100 trillion times and you have equivalent what the designer had done with each of our bodies. And yet the 100 trillionth copy is pretty close to the original. Only an evolutionist would think the 100 trillionth copy would be even better than the original. But real science says that won't happen.

"Meaning there is only one arrangement that fits for most taxa. With human artifacts, there are many ways to arrange them. For instance, books can be arranged in Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Classification, or a multitude of other arrangements. "

That is only true if you add to common descent HGT, convergent evolution and beleive that complex system appear and disappear many times in the sma lineage.

Blas: You mean that without HGT, convergent evolution and the appear and disappear of traits yuo can build a tree of common descent that fits all the traits in a nested hierarchy?

The nested hierarchy is an *observation*. Common descent is a proposed explanation for the nested hierarchy, but the nested hierarchy is still an observation whether or not common descent is the correct explanation.

Joe G: So when we construct a nested hierarchy based on defining traits, it forms a nested hierarchy. Got it.

Not just a nested hierarchy, but independent observers find the same, singular nested hierarchy.

Joe G: And I read Darwin. He doesn't say anything about nested hierarchies.

Darwin discusses Linnaean classification, and the natural system.

If you are still confused, we could try to classify various organisms to see if you agree they form a natural arrangement. Looking at the panoply of traits, how would your group each of these sets of three:

Blas: And you put the Wonbat with the marsupials or with the Groundhog?

The Wombat is a marsupial. It lacks a complex placenta, bears its young in a relatively undeveloped form, then carries its young in a pouch, nursing with special glands. Like other marsupials, it has a bifurcated reproductive system. The have skeletal features in common with other marsupials. Nonetheless, they share many features with other mammals.

Blas: Then you have not nested hierarchies. Similarities within two groups.

Sure there are similarities. Most of them are because they are mammals. But even putting that aside, if you look at the entirety of the organism, Wombats group with marsupials, not placentals; the same reason dolphins group with mammals, not the fish-kind.

"Sure there are similarities. Most of them are because they are mammals. But even putting that aside, if you look at the entirety of the organism, Wombats group with marsupials, not placentals; the same reason dolphins group with mammals, not the fish-kind."

That is because you "choose" the traits that fit better common descent at let the others traits to "convergent evolution". Without convergent evolution, HGT, and the miraculous lost and gain of the same trait in the same lineage you do not have a nested hierarchy of traits.

Good. So if we have a fish, dolphin and cat, the most parsimonious grouping by characte traits would like this: {fish, {dolphin, cat}}. If you continue in this way, the vast majority of organisms will form an objective nested hierarchy.

So what? Grouping tem based on shared characteristics has nothing to do with evolutionism.

You are just confused.

As a nested hierarchy, if all the organisms that allegedly lived were still alive, their wouldn't be an objective nested hierarchy. Transitional forms, by their very nature, violate an objective nested hierarchy.

Strange that you cannot grasp that simple fact. It's as if you are on an agenda of obfuscation.

Even before the release of "Science and Human Origins" there has been an uproar over human chromosome 2, the alleged fusion of two other chromosomes (still found in other primates) and sharing a common ancestor with chimps. According to evos this was supposed to be a chromosomal fusion that occurred in some gamete and then got passed along- a random event.

Ya see gene expression and regulation depend on both the packaging and the location of the chromosomes within the nucleus, ie chromosome territories. And if you have two different/ separate chromosomes then they can be packaged differently and ferried around separately also, meaning they can be separated and placed in different territories.

So perhaps with humans it is required that the information never be separated. And the easiest way to accomplish that was by splicing the two together. Snip off the excess and splice.*

The research would be to determine where HC2 resides in certain tissues and cells and during development and then compare with the two primate chromosomes for the same tissues/ cells and stages of development.

So HC2 is explained as a design feature, for humans. It not only helps with reproductive isolation but it also allows for a different gene expression and regulation pattern necessary for the different requirements of humans.

* it could also be that the two chimp chromosomes were the result of splitting HC2 into two separate chromosomes

Denis Alexander: "The suggestion that God has planted misleading ‘molecular fossils’ in our bodies is parallel to the suggestion that God planted misleading physical fossils in the rocks to test the faith of the believer. The obvious and profound theological problem with such a suggestion, as we considered in Chapter Six, is that it makes God into a deceiver on a grand scale. It would mean believing in a God who deliberately confuses people, making it look certain that we had shared common ancestry with the apes, when really this was not the case."

This is an example of taking someone else's (the believer's) claim seriously, as if it were true in reality, and that all conceptions should conform to it (parallel claims implied in those same claims).

One does not have to personally believe someone else's claims to point out that they are internally self-inconsistent. Right?

Or are you claiming we cannot make progress because there is simply no way to differentiate between the two?

Why is this such a difficult point to get clarified, despite having ample opportunity to address it. I mean, I've only posed it to you directly over, what, at least a half a dozen times?

Furthermore, what exactly do you expect us to make of this sort of behavior?

I personally find the evidence for a universal common ancestor to be reasonably compelling. (I am willing to consider changing my mind.) The only case somewhat made by the similarity between human and chimp is UCA. UCA, however, does not by any stretch validate the Darwinian model (random events + selection). This site has been wonderful at showing data that so badly does not fit the Darwinian model. De Novo genes, particularly come to mind. De Novos should be rare as rare if the Darwinian model is correct. They seem to be common as dirt. Hmmm.

Can you explain what the "Darwin" model is and why they should be "rare as rare"?

Because darwinist when are pushed with some kind of questions, like why evolution didn´t change the laringeal nerve in jiraffes" they say because evolutions has to work with what it has. So why new de novo proteins?

After attacks on John Anderson for details of how chromosomal rearrangements are obviously involved in species diversity sans mutations, atheistic biology teacher PZ Myers attacked me for comments about how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions lead to chromosomal rearrangements and to morphological and behavioral phenotypes recently exemplified in white-throated sparrows.

Differences in their cell types are clearly not due to mutations, but are clearly due to chromosomal arrangements. When I continued to try to get participants on his blog to look at the experimental evidence, he banned me.

His attack-and-deny-experimental evidence approach has become so typical of evolutionary theorists that they are losing any of the perceived credibility they might once have had. Simply put, there are too many people who recognize the obvious fact that the Creation of new genes is nutrient-dependent. Mutations have no creative power whatsoever, and natural selection for beneficial mutations has no new genes to select.

Food is naturally selected in all organisms from microbes to man. The metabolism of nutrients to species specific pheromones also controls the physiology of reproduction in all animals. When you look at the conservation of biologically-based cause and effect across species and tout mutation-driven evolution instead of Creation, you might just as well be blind.

Evolutionary theorists, however, will no doubt remain blind to the most obvious facts. They don't like the idea of Intelligent Design any more than they like the idea of a Creator God. I think that's because in either case they are forced to examine the evidence that refutes their opinions.

Evolutionary theorists, however, will no doubt remain blind to the most obvious facts.

Oh yes, it isn't about science. Evolution is an interesting philosophy of science case study. Spontaneous origins dogmatically mandated to be a fact. The unlikeliness of the hypothesis is exceeded only the certainty with which it is held. You can't reason with evolutionists.

Rather, I'm suggesting that, should you take your own argument seriously, by following the questions I've asked, it would be you that are suggesting a spontaneous origin.

If you don't take your own argument seriously, then why should we?

CH: The unlikeliness of the hypothesis is exceeded only the certainty with which it is held. You can't reason with evolutionists.

Again, I've pointed to a philosophy of science in which the thoery with the most information content (and therefore most unlikely) is preferred, which has yet to have been found false. Nor does it suggest that science proves anything, in the sense you're implying.

So, apparently, I'm not an evolutionist, nor would anyone who is a Popperian, despite the fact that I'v adopted biological Darwinism as the best explanation for the biological complexity we observe.

Furthermore, I'm suggesting that empiricists are confused as to how they've reached their conclusion, not what conclusion should be reached. The process they follow is comparable with conjecture and criticism.

At which point, it's unclear exactly who these "evolutionists" are and why they cannot be reasoned with.

Scott: Again, I've pointed to a philosophy of science [that does not prove anything is true] in the sense you're implying.

Joe, is there something about the above that you do not understand?

Cornelius' argument is parochial because he claims Evolution isn't "science", but doesn't rigorously define the term. So, apparently, he "defines" it as whatever definition of science he *assumes* people use when denying that ID or creationism isn't "science".

This is the intellectual equivalent of saying, "I know I am but so are you".

Zachriel:We're referring to how when classifying organisms by traits, they fall into groups within groups, such as mammals within amniotes within vertebrates within eukaryotes.

Right and that system is based on a common design. Gradual evolution would predict a smooth blending of traits which leads to an overlapping of defining characteristics which is not allowed in a nested hierarchy.

Linnean taxonomy is based on a common design, Zachriel. It uses defined characteristics to define the common design.

One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical basis of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly any change even in method before and after Darwin, except that the “archetype” was replaced by the common ancestor- Ernst Mayr

From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles. …the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.- Gaylord Simpson

All evos did was steal Linnean classification, which was based on common designs.

You can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it accurate. While Linnaeus believed in creation, his taxonomic scheme was based on what he called "natural characters". The same observations apply to everyone.

Joe G: What do you think "archetype" refers to?

Linnaeus believed in the fixity of species, and that variety in each species revolved around an idealized form, or archetype. This belief doesn't impact the classification of species by "natural characters".

Joe G: BTW he was searching for the Created Kinds when he came up with his scheme.

Sure. He was testing a hypothesis that his own research later showed to be false. His classification scheme and his observations were independent of his hypothesis.

By emphasizing Linnaeus, you're making the evolutionary point, not the opposite. Linnaeus had no "evolutionist bias" or Darwinian blinders, and yet from observation he produced just the sort of taxonomy that evolution anticipates. One might say "Even a pre-Darwin creationist agreed with the nested hierarchy."

Linnean taxonomy is not somehow inherently creationist any more than it is inherently Swedish. It doesn't matter if he could personally comport it with his creationism. The point is that nothing about creationism prohibits non-nested-hierarchy structures, while evolution demands such a structure.

Linnaeus developed a taxonomy based on observation of the existing life forms, not based on a particular model of species origins. Although he was a creationist, and I'm sure creationism was a big element of his general thinking, creationist thinking didn't actually produce the taxonomy. There wasn't somehow a process in his mind like "God created all life forms, therefore, each species will only belong to one genus, each genus to a single class, and so on."

In fact, his taxonomy got him in trouble with theologians on a particular point: his notion of "Anthropomorpha", grouping humans with apes. That's still not popular with creationists today, of course; it's the biggest sticking point of all. Generations from now, if YEC still exists, perhaps "baraminologists" will have narrowed animal life down to just two kinds: humans and everything-else.

Anyway, the fact that evolution didn't "change" the classification scheme (except in lots and lots of particulars, of course, not to mention the new paradigm of cladistics) doesn't somehow diminish the significance of the nested hierarchy. It enhances it. It explains the "archetype" as the common ancestor (or as something most basal with respect to that ancestor). Where you see "archetype", think "phlogiston", or a similar empty placeholder.

And common descent explains the rest of the nested hierarchy. The tree of life is a family tree, explained by descent, not by the arbitrary decision of a designer to make something that looks like a family tree.

Yes, he was searching for created kinds, and he found Anthropomorpha, and was honest enough to make that group, breaking with the theological models of his day.

His worldview doesn't matter; the resultant models (and evidence for them) do. I hope you're not suggesting we should treat all science as having confirmed whatever the scientists in question were "searching" for. That would exclude all instances of discoveries that were made by accident (and later replicated), when scientists were expecting something completely different.

Of course, the Linnean taxonomy wasn't discovered by accident but rather from years of methodical research, but the irrelevance of his personal convictions remains. He doesn't "own" the taxa; the world owns them, and generations later they have been refined and clarified. For example, we know where to place creatures unknown/undiscovered in his time, for example, dinosaurs as a subgroup of reptiles and supergroup to birds. Also, where needed, we've added lots of mid-level ranks of classification, like superfamilies, subphyla, etc.

Whether they "could" is incidental to the fact that they did, as attested by DNA and morphological evidence showing that birds' closest living relatives are reptiles, plus an ever-increasing record of fossils clearly demonstrating the overlap. (Creationist response to feathered dinosaurs, clawed birds, and various intermediates thereof: "Doesn't prove anything! Doesn't prove anything!" Or perhaps you would object that if there were feathered dinosaurs then this somehow breaks nested hierarchy instead of confirming it.)

Even if the dinosaur-to-bird transition could never have happened "by itself", per creationism that doesn't mean we can declare it didn't happen. Otherwise a creationist could argue that humans don't exist.

What I mean is this: we know that humans do exist, and creationists posit God as an explanation. We also know, for a fact, the birds descended from therapod dinosaurs in the raptor clade. What's to rule out the hypothesis that God caused this transition? As long as we're going to consider God-based hypotheses, that's the simplest one that accounts for all the facts, rather than "God decided to create dinosaurs and birds that were similar in ways suggesting cousinhood."

Defining birds is ambiguous, yes. Why might that be? What could possibly introduce ambiguity in a simple question like "Is this a bird?"

Bonus points if you can explain why "evolutionists" think that ambiguity in taxonomy (especially at the close-up level, such as distinguishing among equines) would mean much more trouble for "baraminology" than for evolution.

Of course birds aren't the "sum of their genomes"; more like the result of many things including the genome. There's also epigenetics, influences on development while in the egg (such as environmental toxins), and overall life history (for example, birds learn styles of singing from their parents).

You can't pretend that a genotype is somehow totally decoupled from the phenotype, however. For one thing, such an assertion would likely bump into creationist descriptions of DNA as a "code" without any "junk"!

Unless you think the bird DNA consists of "programmer's comments", while the bird itself can look totally different if the designer wants it to? While we're at it, we may as well suppose that the identical DNA of human identical twins is a complete coincidence.

Nested hierarchy? You mean the way species are artificially dated and placed into taxonomic categories to fit the preconceived A priori claims. So you're against Darwinism? Besides a nested hierarchy does not preclude design. You are arguing in circles. "Nested hierarchies prove Darwinism because Darwinism proves nested hierarchies."

I'm arguing that a nested hierarchy doesn't preclude design. Whether I believe it is another matter. A "nested hierarchy" is an artificial construct of a mind. Nature knows nothing of a "nested hierarchy" as it doesn't know anything. BTW, why do evolutionist always tout the "bird-like features" of dinosaurs they don't even believe are the ancestors of birds in the popular press? Because reporters are basically ignorant and they wish to shore up their failing claims? Sure seems so. People are getting sick of this, and the tide may turn. If not you will destroy actual science in this country and real scientific freedom will move elsewhere. India and China are rapidly developing and they have little taste for your just so stories. Once they reach a certain economic level their scientists will stay home. At that point the brain drain will go the other way.

Nonsense, an elliptical orbit is observable. A nested hierarchy is manufactured. It's founded on assumptions that are NOT OBSERVABLE. It's reading presuppositions into taxonomy, which is nothing but a convenient way of arranging living things into homologous categories. We can observe an orbit, the planets orbit is elliptical whether you plot it or not. You are making category errors.

Actually, no they're not. Planets have positions and momentums, but there is no actual ellipse.

eklektos: It's founded on assumptions that are NOT OBSERVABLE.

The nested hierarchy is directly observed. Try it yourself. Classify a few organisms based on character traits. You'll find they fall into nested sets. How would you group these organisms; rabbit, dog, fish?

eklektos: I noticed that you have no problem with evolutionist violating your "nested hierarchies"

A. Had I the patience and the vantage point I could watch it travel in an ellipse. What you're claim is that it doesn't leave a line behind it? How silly is that? The fact is that I can observe and plot the path of the orbit and see it's an ellipse. And it will be an ellipse every time. In the here and now. However "nested hierarchies" are not plotted by any observation beyond picking which traits you want to choose to "nest" where. And filling in the blanks with imaginary "ancestors". B. Nested hierarchies are not testable, they're subjective. Further they're not falsifiable because whenever you find a life form that violates the "nested hierarchies" they explain it away, choose another trait, change the chart, etc.. Then they claim "see, evolution is true because.." right back into a circle. But in fact those nestings are entirely artificial and subjective.C. You haven't answered the question. If nested hierarchies prove evolution, why then do evolutionist claim that bird evolved from the saurischians and not the ornithiscians? You're "nested hierarchies" are arbitrary. You pick what traits you like, and then "nest" them where you want.D. The Cambrian animals have completely destroyed any illusion of nesting. You have whole body plans appearing suddenly without any thing that you could remotely call an ancestor. There is nothing in the precambrian rock layers that would justify your claims. And no explanation given meets the evidence. So the whole phony enterprise has collapsed.

eklektos: Had I the patience and the vantage point I could watch it travel in an ellipse... And it will be an ellipse every time.

You should try it, because if you did, you would realize the Earth doesn't travel in an ellipse.

eklektos: What you're claim is that it doesn't leave a line behind it?

eklektos: Nonsense, an elliptical orbit is observable.

The nested hierarchy is observable in just the same way as orbits. You observe the planet at various times, and compare it to the abstraction.

eklektos: However "nested hierarchies" are not plotted by any observation beyond picking which traits you want to choose to "nest" where.

And that is where you are wrong. If you take all character traits, there will be only one nested hierarchy that fits for the vast majority of organisms and traits.

eklektos: Further they're not falsifiable because whenever you find a life form that violates the "nested hierarchies" they explain it away, choose another trait, change the chart, etc.

The Earth's isn't a sphere either, but it is sort of roundish.

eklektos: If nested hierarchies prove evolution, why then do evolutionist claim that bird evolved from the saurischians and not the ornithiscians?

We're not discussing "proving evolution". You claim that an objective nested hierarchy doesn't exist. We need to establish that before discussing any implications. The nested hierarchy means there are objective correlations. For instance, if an organism has mammary glands, then it also has mitochondria, vertebrae, and ossicles.

Evolutionism does NOT predict an objective nested hierarchy. The ONLY way it can "explain" one is via well-timed extinction events, as well as other lucky coincidences. And no amout of whining from Zachriel will ever change that fact.

This is a common argumentation, "well I wouldn't have done it that way". Bart Ehrman makes it all the time. Why would a creator be bound to please them? So in reality it doesn't disprove anything, rather it proves the biases of the person making the argument.

I'm sorry, but "inelegant" is an aesthetic claim, not a scientific one. Nor does "how I would have done it" have any explanatory value beyond your preferences. If it accomplishes the designers purpose then it accomplishes the designers purpose.

Joe G, You may find this interesting. This was one of the "proofs" asserted by Bill Nye the Not so Scientific Guy. It turns out, once you get past the Darwinist dogma, that blind cavefish are simply crippled Mexican tetras. This gave them an advantage in a high stress environment, but as soon as they were put back in the light and bred with the sighted tetras they developed eyes. So it's merely an already existing variability. See:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080108-cave-fish.html

How does that follow? If you eliminate it a priori how would you know? You're looking at the product, you're not examining the designer. You just wish to eliminate the possibility a priori that it's designed, so you shoehorn the evidence to fit a conclusion you haven't proven. Spontaneous generation.

Suppose you came to me and said you believed advanced and intelligent life had emerged on Mars long before it did on Earth. Suppose you argued that the Martians had traveled to Earth and seeded it with life billions of years ago. We can call it the Little Green Men From Mars (LGMFM) theory.

My response would be that, yes, it was possible but that, as yet, we have no direct evidence of even the simplest life on Mars, let alone any that was small, green and humanoid, advanced or otherwise.

On the other hand, I would say, we do have good evidence of life here on Earth changing and diversifying over time through a number of natural processes so, if we want to find out how life emerged here on Earth then, even though it might turn out not to be right, it is the most sensible place to start.

It doesn't necessarily rule out other possibilities. For example, if you dug up the ancient wreck of an alien spaceship with the fossilized remains of little, green men inside then we would certainly take a second look at the LGMFM theory. Until then, or unless you can come up with something else, our best bet is to go with what we know or, at least, with what we have pretty good evidence for.

It's the same with Intelligent Design. Give us something that can be tested, something we can look for, something that wouldn't be there if the Designer did not exist because, without it, all you have is conjecture. Not that there is anything wrong with conjecture but it's not the same as a testable hypothesis, let alone a fully-fledged theory, no matter how much it is dressed up in the language of information theory.

My original comment referred to people who make comments like "That's inelegant. That's unsatisfactory, et al" Which is nothing more than I wouldn't have done it that way. That's not taking it at face value. When I say, find an arrowhead. I infer design. The designer is not available to interrogate. I can make inferences to the designers purpose. Maybe I can make some basic inferences to the nature of the designer. But I cannot infer all the designers intentions. But the origin I can infer is designed. But what you're calling "science" a priori precludes that possibility. All causes must be natural, and mindless.. Of course they don't mind violating the law of biogenesis. So just once there was a supernatural event. Oh, and of course the singularity was supernatural, but just once. (unless you want to argue nothing can generate something).

eklektos: My original comment referred to people who make comments like "That's inelegant. That's unsatisfactory, et al"

Right. It's ascribing various characteristics to the designer in order to derive some sort of empirical implications. Whomever worked on chromosome 2 in humans is apparently an inelegant designer. Would you disagree? On what basis?

eklektos: When I say, find an arrowhead. I infer design.

When you say you find an "arrowhead", you have already made the conclusion. What you mean is that when you find a piece of chipped stone, you try and determine if it was fashioned by humans.

eklektos: The designer is not available to interrogate. I can make inferences to the designers purpose.

If you are referring to human-made arrowheads, and not those fashioned by Venusians, then humans still exist "in the wild",and you can study them at leisure. Indeed, you can even communicate with them.

eklektos: TheMaybe I can make some basic inferences to the nature of the designer.

Sure. The designers of the arrowhead have an alimentary canal, four limbs, three ossicles, two hands with opposable thumbs, talk by flapping their meat at each other. We can find out more, if you like.

eklektos: But what you're calling "science" a priori precludes that possibility. All causes must be natural, and mindless.

Poor Zachriel- it is still confused wrt designers. Zach really thinks saying "humans didit" actually answers the "who". Unfortunately ZAch is sadly mistaken and would be fired if he was an archaeologist or forensic scientist.

Joe G, He certainly would. We have found plenty of stone tools that are not made today and we can only conjecture as to their use. We have plenty of other objects that have been discovered that we know are designed, but just what their function was we are unsure of. Could be decorative, could be religious, or could be monetary, we just don't know. That's what Archeology does. His argument is simplistic to the point of incoherence.

Hypothesis: Given intelligent design we should not see life arising spontaneously from inorganic material. Observation: We do not see life arising from inorganic material. Conclusion: See the law of biogenesis.

So let me understand this, you want your miracle. That's too rich. Besides a negative claim is an acceptable hypothesis. Let's try the evolutionists shall we: Given there are no supernatural events we should not see miracles. We don't see miracles. God doesn't exist. OF course there could be many reason we don't see miracles. If an intervention occurred how would you know it unless you were there to observe it? You're logic is unassailable. Or more properly put, your faith. You want to dangle the possibility of a compromise between science and religion, but in reality you wish to simply replace one dogma with another. Without biogenesis the whole Darwinian mess can't get off the ground. So not only does it have no explanatory power of itself, it cannot even get started. Science is, or should be the study of how things operate. Instead they meander off into metaphysical claims then postulate absurd and obviously falsifiable theories to prop up their metaphysical claims. I don't have to prove anything, it is sufficient to falsify yours.

All you are doing is defending your unproven suppositions. Methodological Naturalism does rule out all other possibilities. It's a foundational presupposition. It prejudges evidence based on the fact that all causes must be material. If you postulate that Martians, which materialists have done after a fashion and very recently, and the savant Dawkins has also rambled about aliens, did it you'd have to present some sort of evidence. This phony form of argumentation is rife within the "scientific community". You make circular arguments, then claim they aren't. Failing that you then try to make your arguments longer and longer in an attempt to wear out your critics. You have a bigger problem than the ID folks. You cannot get past biogenesis, nor can you get past the singularity. So you're foundational assumption remains unproven and Unprovable. All you've done is dismiss you're critics without an argument.

Next you falsely bait and switch. No ID proponent, nor YEC for that matter, denies that things change, but what are the limits? You seem to think that given enough time there are none. But observation doesn't bear this out. Then you take "micro mutational changes" and then claim that proves "macro mutational" evolution, which has never been observed.

eklektos February 16, 2014 at 12:01 PMAll you are doing is defending your unproven suppositions. Methodological Naturalism does rule out all other possibilities.

Does it? Just what possibilities is it ruling out? The supernatural? How do you define it? What reasons do you have for thinking such a thing exists?

It's a foundational presupposition.

It is assumed because that is all we observe.

It prejudges evidence based on the fact that all causes must be material.

You're confusing "naturalism" and "materialism".

If you know of something that exists independently of matter and energy and is comprised of neither then tell us about it.

If you postulate that Martians, which materialists have done after a fashion and very recently, and the savant Dawkins has also rambled about aliens, did it you'd have to present some sort of evidence.

Quite true. If anybody seriously proposes that Martians created life on earth or that we are descended from them, then they will be required to support the claim with evidence.

And if you claim that some intelligent agency was responsible for life on Earth, but was neither human nor a deity, then all we are left with are extraterrestrials or aliens.

You have a bigger problem than the ID folks. You cannot get past biogenesis, nor can you get past the singularity.

Quite right. Currently, we don't know how the Universe of life began but that doesn't mean we never will. That's just something else we don't know yet.

Next you falsely bait and switch. No ID proponent, nor YEC for that matter, denies that things change, but what are the limits? You seem to think that given enough time there are none. But observation doesn't bear this out. Then you take "micro mutational changes" and then claim that proves "macro mutational" evolution, which has never been observed.

This distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is a Paleyist delaying tactic.

When the evidence for evolution below the species level became irresistible. the Paleyists had no choice but to concede it happens or lose what little credibility they had. Rather than surrender altogether, though, they fell back to the next defensive position which was to try separate evolution on the smaller scale from evolution on the larger scale. Still looking for those limits, though.

Then you claim "give us something that can be tested" i.e. you wish to test the foundational assumption of ID proponents but are unwilling to test your own. Prove that all causes are natural. You can't, anymore than you can prove your ontological or epistemological claims. In fact you cannot even make sense of them. You are finite, and to do so would require infinite knowledge, which you do not and never will have. That is nothing more than a lump of clay arguing with a potter. Your whole theory can be reduced to a bumper stick, "stuff happens". From this absurdity you then want to be the sole voice in society. Life is larger than science, and fields overlap. You simply wish everyone to bow down to your unproven claims.

Another problem is statistical, the numbers involved are so large that they are statically zero. A 1x10/250 chance is no chance, which the savant Dawkins doesn't seem to understand. He talks as if every try reduces that number by one, it doesn't, that number is the same for every attempt. Every time you try it's 1x10/250. You also have no explanation for the information contained in the DNA molecule, nor will you. Information is only derived from an intelligence, not by chance, or any known or ever to be known natural process. And when you have to put into textbook that one must "remind themselves that what looks like design isn't" all you are doing is dismissing what you actually observe. That is not science, it's a metaphysical assertion.

Next you attempt to deny the difference between observational science and historical science. Evolutionist don't agree with you, and have admitted as much. You cannot observe or repeat events in the past, so you just shoehorn current observations into a "theory" which explains away all counter evidence. Dating of a fossil doesn't come out the way you want, well the dating must be wrong, because we "know" evolution is true. Find sediment with human and dinosaur bones mixed together, come up with a fanciful story about how it doesn't prove what it seems to. "Well, because we know x this cannot be x, so it must be y." It so weak an argument you must then prevent anyone from being allowed to present any counter argument. So send out the prissy schoolmarm Eugene Scott to say that if you listen to any counter argument you won't have your cell phones. Then you can have her lie about why Haekels drawings must be in text books because we no they are essentially correct; even if they were proven to be a fraud.

I'm sorry, your argument is so naïve as to be laughable. Now you lament that the public won't believe you and it's getting worse. What did you expect? Once you knock the foundations out from under knowledge anything goes. Mind you I'm not defending this, because then you get people denying we can know anything, and that's never a good thing.

Do us all a favor, go design a vaccine and leave other matters to people who have bothered to take the time, study, and rigor to understand them.

Then you claim "give us something that can be tested" i.e. you wish to test the foundational assumption of ID proponents but are unwilling to test your own.

If ID proponents were actually interested in practising science rather than trying to undermine it, they would not be waiting for me or anyone else to ask them to test their claims, they would already be doing it themselves.

Prove that all causes are natural. You can't, anymore than you can prove your ontological or epistemological claims.

I know I can't but so what? Science can still proceed on that assummption, at least until evidence is found that compels a revision.

Your whole theory can be reduced to a bumper stick, "stuff happens". From this absurdity you then want to be the sole voice in society.

I don't know where you get the idea I want to be the "sole voice in society". I actually want as many voices to be heard as possible. I detest the thought of a society, such as North Korea or Iran or the Taliban, in which the whole population is forced to be subservient to a single faith or ideology, in which dissent is not tolerated at all and in which heretics and infidels are imprisoned or killed summarily.

Life is larger than science, and fields overlap. You simply wish everyone to bow down to your unproven claims.

Science is a human enterprise and is as reliable or as fallible as the people who practice it. Its claims should be judged by weighing the evidence - all the evidence - both for and against. I certainly don't want anyone to "bow down" to science but I do want it to be given a fair shake.

And when you have to put into textbook that one must "remind themselves that what looks like design isn't" all you are doing is dismissing what you actually observe. That is not science, it's a metaphysical assertion.

No, it is simply a reminder that the appearance of design does not necessarily indicate the presence of design. We look for patterns in the world as part of our attempt to make sense of it. It's a useful tool but it's not 100% reliable. Seeing the face of the Virgin Mary in a damp stain on a wall or the face of Jesus on a piece of toast suggest we need ot be wary of appearances.

Next you attempt to deny the difference between observational science and historical science. Evolutionist don't agree with you, and have admitted as much.

I not only attempt to deny the difference between observational and historical science, I do deny it. It is as much a false distinction as the Paleyist attempt to divide evolution into "micro" and "macro"

You cannot observe or repeat events in the past, so you just shoehorn current observations into a "theory" which explains away all counter evidence.

The police are usually unable to observe a murder and certainly are not allowed to repeat it but that doesn't prevent them from finding enough evidence to arrest, try and convict an offender for the crime.

Science, in part, is about collecting as much observational data as possible, constructing explanations or models which account for what is observed and finding ways to test those explanations to see which gets closest to what is observed. Observations can be what we see with the naked eye or through a microscsope or it can be instruments which detect slight variations in radiation invisible to the human eye, which began its journey to us billions of years ago and from which we can learn something about the nature of the very early universe which no one was around to see at the time, as far as we know.

At root, science is just insatiable curiosity about the Universe in which we find ourselves. It is wanting to know if there are other planets out there with life on them, not hoping there aren't because it would look bad for human conceits about a special creation of a chosen people.

Paleyist attempt? That's it, show your colors. When in doubt throw a pejorative. Evolutionist disagree with you. Go find out for yourself. You are making assertions. You do not observe the past, nor do you observe macroevolution. In the case of macroevolution we observe just the opposite. We observe limits. You just don't want to pretend they don't exist. And spare me the phony and oft refuted CSI claim. That's a TV show, not reality. Not to mention there are some huge assumptions there also.The natural world is the material world, so if all causes are natural it's perfectly valid to call evolutionist materialist. There's no delaying anything, micro-mutational evolution cannot be demonstrated, either from the fossil record or biology. I don't have to delay what doesn't exist. The Long paper is rife with nothing but assertions, a cobbled together monster proving absolutely nothing. The probability of producing a single useful folding protein is prohibitively high, as in ZERO. Much less the army of other factors necessary to use it. So spare me your pie in the sky foolishness. If you want to see where Darwinism leads look at the twentieth century. Speciation is not macroevolution. You cannot even define a species. Besides, you're using Ad Hoc logic. We see variation within a population, therefore variation explains everything. Well, no, it doesn't. Animal husbandry was thousands of years ahead of you on that. Mutation does not provide a mechanism for viable new information. Natural selection is an insufficient explanation for the variety of what we see. Then false dichotomy: If ID were interested in blah blah blah. Science is falsifiable. We have falsified evolutions claims. We need do nothing more. You've just made another "you'll lose your cell phone" argument. Now we do, but you just don't get to, or refuse to, read about it because Darwinist, smarmy little cowards that they are, think their theory is so pathetic that it must silence all dissent. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Darwin." You are losing the public, they don't believe you anymore. Another generation or two and your hegemony will be gone. You have made science so boring and dogmatic that people have tuned out. We have to import scientist now. What do we do when the US is no longer an attractive place to work? Europe is busy committing cultural suicide, all on the basis of false materialist assumptions. We're not far behind. I worry deeply for my children and grandchildren, as they will have to live in the wreck your evolutionary religion has made.

Since there seems to be some difficulty for my poor evolutionary friends let me explain it to them. The plot of an orbit is mathematical. A taxonomy is informational. They are not the same thing. To assume they are is a category error.

Since you don't seem to get the difference let me explain it terms you may be able to understand. An ellipse is mathematically defined and derived. A nested hierarchy may have structure that can be in some fashion mathematically described it is not mathematically derived. But you wish to argue like a child, so let's put it terms you may be able to understand: 3,pi, mx+b, dog."One of things is not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong..."

"We said considering all traits to find the most parsimonious grouping. "

Right, is what I´m saying in order to have a nested hierarchy you have to select the traits that have less exceptions and find a narrative to explain that exceptions (convergent evolution, HGT, lost and recover of traits in the same lineage).

You're exactly right. He doesn't seem to understand that while sets may be mathematically described they are not mathematically derived. Even if one were to give a numeric value to each trait and then plot a graph to show the data points you would get widely varying results depending upon how you weighted the traits. The whole "nested hierarchy" is an artifact of their desires, not a description of nature. Particularly when one considers they have to posit imaginary flora and fauna. Further as we now know their tree is upside down. What we observe is a decrease in information not an increase. The tree is upside down. Then you have the problem of not only having to statistically violate the laws of probability, you have to do it multiple times across disparate lines to explain how a particular useful protein fold could arise twice, three times, ect. So they come up with a host of unproven assumptions and try to bury their critics in jargon. The whole enterprise is actually quite gnostic. Then this kind of stupidity insinuates itself into other areas, and you get Bart Ehrman and others making more arguments from silence. Hypothesis's about non existent documents, mind reading, ect. That's why it could be more properly described as a religion, as it's founded on nothing but faith.

Depends on how you classify the traits. That's not an "objectively nested hierarchy". The model would simply describe the set of your selected traits. Besides, none of that proves evolution, nor indeed can it. I could generate a "nested hierarchy" of motorized vehicles. Did they evolve?

When we classify into a nested hierarchy, it means that the traits that define an upper level apply to the lower levels. There are correlations.

For instance, if an organism has mammary glands, we can predict it will have a complex cell structure with mitochondria and a nucleus; bilateral symmetry, a head with an array of sense organs, a nerve cord protected by bony vertebrae, lungs, four limb buds at some time during development, an amnion, hair follicles and probably hair, four-chambered heart, auditory ossicles.

We can go further. Look at a dolphin forelimb, which have carpels, metacarpels, and phalanges. Or the lower jaw, which is a single bone, the mandible, connected to the temporal by the temporomandibular joint. And so on. All this from teats.

Now, provide your classification of vehicles, and try the same test. If a vehicle has a four-cylinder engine or two doors, what can you tell us about the rest of the vehicle? Provide your classification, and let's take a look!

The reason it won't work is because human designers mix and match, while most of the long history of life is due to uncrossed descent.

Consider this question. Perhaps centaurs and griffins once existed, but are just memories today. Are centaurs and griffins possible organisms?

"That is not required in order to discern the nested hierarchy, which exists regardless of any explanatory framework."

No the hierarchy is only nested when you can take out of the picture the non nested trait. You ave a dolphin group with mammals only if you say that the body shape is due to convergent evolution. If you take all the traits your nested hierarchy do not exist.

Blas: No the hierarchy is only nested when you can take out of the picture the non nested trait.

We said to classify according to the panoply of traits. Look at the skeleton, the blood, the eyes, the ears, the brain, the reproductive system, the genome, of a dolphin. Compare it to a fish and a cat. Looking at all the traits, does a dolphin more closely resemble a cat or a fish?

Zachriel: We said to classify according to the panoply of traits. Look at the skeleton, the blood, the eyes, the ears, the brain, the reproductive system, the genome, of a dolphin. Compare it to a fish and a cat. Looking at all the traits, does a dolphin more closely resemble a cat or a fish?

Blas: You have traits that resemble both.

You don't think dolphins group better with mammals than fish? You might want to take a closer look.

Better accordign to what? Dolphins have traits that I can goup with a fish and other with a mammals wich is the criteria? The number of traits? Ok, but your hierarchies are not nested, you make them nested by ignore a number of traits. If you really want nested hierarchies use the "kinds" of creationist, there you do not have the problems of overlapping traits.

Blas: Dolphins have traits that I can goup with a fish and other with a mammals wich is the criteria? The number of traits? Ok, but your hierarchies are not nested, you make them nested by ignore a number of traits.

Try again. We said to classify according to the panoply of traits. Look at the skeleton, the blood, the eyes, the ears, the brain, the reproductive system, the genome, of a dolphin. Look closely at the fins. Compare it to a fish and a cat. Do dolphins group better with cats or with fish?

"Try again. We said to classify according to the panoply of traits. Look at the skeleton, the blood, the eyes, the ears, the brain, the reproductive system, the genome, of a dolphin. Look closely at the fins. Compare it to a fish and a cat. Do dolphins group better with cats or with fish? "

try you agai Zachriel, it is not difficult. You have traits traits mammals traits, fish traits and shared traits. Most of mammals do not have fishy traits, most of fish do not have mammals traits but dolphins and other animals have all of the three groups of traits. Then there is no nested hierarchy.

A "nested hierarchy is not mathematically derived. It is derived by a taxonomist looking at traits, deciding which one he wants to favor, which he wishes to ignore, and a host of other subjective judgments. You don't look at a trait and plot it's position relative to space. Where in the world did you go to school? At this point it's getting hard not to become insulting. Repeating the question "does the Earth orbit in an ellipse" doesn't help your argument. Of course it's orbit can mathematically described as an ellipse. There's no subjectivity about it's shape. I don't have to choose which plot point to weight over all the other plot points. I gave you a CONCRETE example of the subjectivity in taxonomy, you just continue to ignore it. That means you are being deceptive, i.e. dishonest. You're committing a category error. Google it!

"A nested hierarchy or inclusion hierarchy is a hierarchical ordering of nested sets."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy#Nested_hierarchy

It's a mathematical structure, just like an ellipse. While an ellipse is a conic section, a nested hierarchy is a set of sets.

eklektos: Repeating the question "does the Earth orbit in an ellipse" doesn't help your argument. Of course it's orbit can mathematically described as an ellipse.

Thank you for the direct answer. That's false, of course. The Earth's orbit resembles an ellipse, but is not an ellipse. The orbit is perturbed by the Moon, for instance. The actual orbit is quite complicated, and it is difficult to even know if the Earth's orbit is stable over long periods.

eklektos: I gave you a CONCRETE example of the subjectivity in taxonomy ...

Well, let's try a couple of examples. How would you group these based on the entirely of the structure; cat, frog, fish? Or these; cat, dolphin, fish?

A. Plot points are mathematically derived, not just mathematically described. Begs the question.B. It is close enough to an ellipse that it is described as such. Now you're being pedantic. And you're still begging the question.C. Begs the question.D. Subjective.

Of course it does. You claimed it was subjective, and we claim that there are objective measures of similarity, that we can objectively group organisms. Try something very simple; cat, lion, frog. Something a little less simple; cat, fish, dolphin. Do you think that cats and lions share more traits than either do with frogs?

A. A mathematically derived coordinate in space is not the same an assigned set according to evolutionary assumptions. Category error. And you begged the question by stating they were abstract constructs. That's not the question, their derivation is.B. The question of resolution for a coordinate in space is mathematical. Category errorC. The aesthetics problem still holds. You'd have to prove the most efficient and simple solution is the most aesthetic. That's an assumption. There is more than how it appears. I've worked with a lot of engineers, and simplicity is not always the only concern.

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Eric Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational modelsin systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49, page 34

Let me address why you cannot expect an objective evolutionary taxonomy. The reason is that it assumes what it purports to prove. All those lineages and traits are "nested" according to evolutionary presuppositions. They are not "nested" according to any objective standards. Not by genetics, number of similar traits, homology, or anything else. They are arranged by assumptions about the past. Assume ID and you get a different chart. You get straight lines at the bottom with braches off the lines, a mass extinction eliminating a whole host of lines, fewer straight lines with branches on them, more extinctions, and the far fewer lines we have today. This is what we see. Even Darwin recognized that the history of life was mass extinction. Genetics is making the case for fixity in organisms, with some built in variation in the cell, but boundaries which don't seem to be able to be traversed. We similar traits used in disparate species, as any engineer would use. Ask an engineer, or one who is not a rabid Darwinist, and he will tell you, "I don't care if the theory is true. The question is can I do something useful with this". I remember asking a professor one time "how does current flow in this circuit?" His answer? "It just goes." And to compare this enterprise to graphing an orbit in space by graphing from mathematically derived positions is a flaming category error. I can take the coordinates in the now, not by assuming things about the past. So parsimony or parsnips it doesn't matter. Take away the assumption and it falls on its backside.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/